Terrorism Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Charles Clarke) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today placing in the Libraries of both Houses a letter from Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the Terrorism Bill.
	I am grateful to the high commissioner for her letter. She suggests that the Bill would benefit from further scrutiny. The Bill is of course currently before the House of Lords where it is being subject to detailed consideration.
	The high commissioner has a number of specific concerns about the Bill. We do not believe that these are justified.
	She suggests that the Bill lacks a precise definition of terrorism. In fact, the Bill draws on the definition of terrorism contained in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. As has been made clear during the Bill's parliamentary passage, the Government do not believe that a better definition of terrorism can easily be created but we have asked the independent reviewer of our terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to conduct a review of the definition of terrorism used in legislation. He has said that in doing so he will consult widely and will report within a year of commencement of the new Act.
	The high commissioner is concerned about Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. The Government have made a number of changes to these clauses during the Bill's parliamentary passage and given indications of further planned changes. These include imposing an intent test, with subjective recklessness, in Clause 1 and widening the defence of non-endorsement in both Clauses 1 and 2. The Government are satisfied that these clauses constitute a proportionate and necessary response to the threat of terrorism.
	The high commissioner queries Clause 21, which extends the grounds for proscription to include those organisations that glorify terrorism. The Government believe that such organisations can create a climate in which terrorism can flourish and their activities need to be restricted. The full safeguards, including parliamentary approval subject to the affirmative resolution and appeal rights, will apply to any groups proscribed under these powers.
	The high commissioner expresses concern about the proposal to extend the maximum pre-charge detention period in terrorism cases to 28 days. This has been extensively debated in Parliament and the Government accept Parliament's decision in this matter. The Government are satisfied that the safeguards in place, including regular judicial oversight, mean that an extension to the maximum pre-charge detention period to 28 days (as would an extension to 90 days) would be compatible with the UK's international human rights obligations.